Dawkins, Bowlsby: Highlights and anecdotes from the Stanford news conference

* 10:22 a.m. Tuesday update: Nice original spelling error in the headline! Sorry, just caught it. It’ll make a funny a-n-e-c-d-o-t-e when Bowlsby, Dawkins and I toast their fifth straight Final Four appearance in 2013.

Very interesting news conference announcing the Johnny Dawkins Era at Stanford today. Hey, I even wrote a column about it that, rumor has it, will appear in tomorrow morning’s paper.

So I won’t ramble on too much here, other than give you some interesting tidbits from Dawkins’ and my bestest pal Bob Bowlsby’s media give-and-take and to make a few additional observations…

* I liked Dawkins. Straight-shooter, big family, confident guy. Stanford people said Dawkins’ time would be limited after the official news conference, but he stayed around afterwards and answered more than a few of our extra questions in a less formal setting.

Advertisement

(So did Bowlsby. He and I aren’t getting along right now, but I’ll give a nod because he stuck around and answered my questions, even though I’ve written that he bungled the Trent Johnson situation so badly he might have to resign eventually because of it. Still believe that. Still giving Bowlsby a nod for sticking around for the questions.)

* Dawkins, by all indications, is a solid, sharp guy who cannot help but be honest and let everybody know that his eye is on the Duke job whenever Krzyzewski retires. I respect that, but it’s also not a positive thing for Stanford, which is the new entry-level Pac-10 job, alongside Oregon State.

Funny little note: When I asked Dawkins at the news conference if he was bothered that Bowlsby went through 7 or 8 other candidates before getting to Dawkins, Dawkins answered it wryly, then Bowlsby jumped in, saying Dawkins’ name came up right away because one of Bowlsby’s first calls was to Coach K.

* Dawkins doesn’t seem to be totally immersed the whole recruiting scene–hasn’t been able to get in touch with top Stanford recruit Miles Plumlee (who has asked for a release from his commitment) and wasn’t involved with recruiting him to Duke.

I’ll give Dawkins credit: I asked him if he’d consider refusing to release Plumlee from his Stanford commitment and Dawkins said no, he wouldn’t want a player who didn’t want to come to Stanford.

Good call.

I liked Dawkins. Straight up guy who knows he has Duke to fall back on, so why start spinning tall tales or putting pressure on commitments now?

Still, I don’t know how much Dawkins was involved in recruiting at Duke, if at all. Doesn’t give off the vibe of a born recruiter–unlike, say, Jim Harbaugh, Ben Howland, Lorenzo Romar, Tim Floyd, and yes, in his own way, Trent Johnson. (Just ask past Stanford players about Johnson’s recruiting ability.)

Every single one of those guys, I guarantee, already would’ve had five or 10 conversations with any wavering top recruit three days after taking the job.

Advertisement

* Bowlsby tried to sell Dawkins to us, and I guess in some places just listing Duke, Coach K, NBA, Olympic coaching staff makes Dawkins a good hire.

Not for me. I bought the Harbaugh hire because that was about more than his NFL career–the NFL was part of it, but there were things beyond that… the energy, the offensive philosophy, the West Coast experience, the cockiness, the quarterbacking…

I totally bought Ted Leland’s hiring of Trent Johnson because everybody in the Stanford program knew that Johnson (former Monty assistant with deep ties to the program) was the first, best and really only candidate Leland could possibly hire after Montgomery.

Johnson was a known, proven commodity–having taken Nevada to the Sweet 16. Harbaugh was a good edgy pick, who still may or may not pan out.

We don’t know what Dawkins brings because A) he hasn’t been a head coach (Harbaugh had won on a lower level), B) he hasn’t recruited in the West, C) just having an NBA background isn’t a guarantee of college success, or else the college ranks would be jammed with former NBA players taking teams to the tournament, and that isn’t the case…

D) just having a Duke/NBA background isn’t a guarantee of success or else, again, jammed ranks… and no, and E) You think an old NBA guy automatically gets top recruits? No, what gets top recruits is a coach they believe will get them ready for the NBA… And that hasn’t even been Coach K of late, unless J.J. Redick, Shelden Williams, Josh McRoberts and Daniel Ewing have made the All-Star team when I wasn’t looking the last few years.

OK, on to the Q & A interludes….

—- HIGHLIGHTS from the JOHNNY DAWKINS Q & A /

-Q: Why was Stanford a good fit for you?

-DAWKINS: The things that interested me about Stanford… there are a lot of similarities between where I’ve been and where I am now. I think Stanford is one of the best schools in the world. I think the school I just left is one of the best schools in the world.

I felt very comfortable and knew it’d be a great fit if I ever had the opportunity to come here and coach at this university.

-Q: What’s your coaching style?

-DAWKINS: I believe in an uptempo game, I believe in man-to-man defense. I believe in an offense that’s predicated on good ball movement, player movement, motion offense…

-Q: Does it concern you that there were maybe seven or eight guys Bowlsby talked to before he approached you in this process?

-DAWKINS: It bothered me. (Laughter.) I’m just happy to be here. I didn’t pay attention to the whole… who they were interested in.

—–BOWLSBY interjects: One of the first people I talked to in the search was Mike Krzyzewski and I talked to him about both Johnny and Steve Wojchiechowski, who is also on the Duke staff.

It was just part of the research that was done early in the process. At that time he told me that Johnny would be the likely successor to him and I asked him how long is he going to coach?

He said he wanted to coach as long as he was feeling he could put his best foot forward every day. And he thought he’d coach another decade.

So the process started earlier than last week.

—BACK TO DAWKINS/

-Q: Are you Coach K’s successor?

-DAWKINS: Nobody can predict the future. I’ve had an unbelievable experience there. My memories from Duke University are special. Who will succeed Coach K? No one knows.

-Q: Did you need to take a head-coaching job somewhere else to prepare you for taking over Duke after Coach K?

-DAWKINS: I didn’t look at this as a step to take the Duke job at all. I looked at it as an opportunity for me to continue to grow as a coach. I was excited to be in a place where I knew I would be happy to be there as long as I could live.

-Q: You’ve never been a head coach. What’s the difference for you?

-DAWKINS: I’m no longer making suggestions, so life is changed. I used to say, ‘Coach, we need to do this, we need to do that’ …

That changes things. And there are going to be a number of things that may pop up that I don’t expect at the moment. I’ve worked for ‘Coach’ for over a decade. I’ve also played for or worked with some of the greatest coaches who ever played this game.

-Q: Did you speak to Trent Johnson before you took this job?

-DAWKINS: Actually I did speak with Trent. He loved it. He said he loved the program. Thought that if I had the opportunity, it would be a great opportunity for me and it’d be a great fit.

—later, DAWKINS to a group of reporters off of the podium…

-Q: Did you feel like you’d have a head-coaching job before now?

-DAWKINS: I was very happy where I was. I was associate head coach at a major program. To me, I knew where I was sitting with coach and our relationship. My life was fine. So this has been, for me, an amazing opportunity because they’re so similar.

(Dawkins later said he has been mentioned as Coach K’s successor and that it’s obviously flattering. He also said he hopes and believes Krzyzewski will coach another 10 years.)

-Q: Shouldn’t you have some serious concerns about this program with the way Trent ended up leaving?

-DAWKINS: Sometimes I look at things as kind of a destiny kind of thing. He ended up with another position, which (opened) a position that I thought would be a great fit for me. I’m happy for him.

—-One more thing: I asked Dawkins if he could differentiate himself from some of Duke’s other famous assistants/former players on Coach K’s staff.

Dawkins said Mike Brey (now at Notre Dame) is “an incredible man” and a great people person. He said Jeff Capel III (now at Oklahoma) is “an unbelievable communicator.” He said Tommy Amaker (now at Harvard) is “just as sharp as they come.”

He said Quinn Snyder (former Missouri coach) is “as bright as anybody you’re going to meet.”

And you, Johnny? “I hope I’m as classy as anybody you’re going to meet.” Then he laughed.

——BOB BOWLSBY Q & A (this was with me)/

-Q: Have you ever hired a basketball or football coach who had no previous head-coaching experience?

-BOWLSBY: I have. I hired Terry Allen at Northern Iowa, he became the all-time winningest coach. I guess he’s probably the only one.

-Q: So, why do you think Johnny can do it with no previous head-coaching experience?

-BOWLSBY: You have to minimize the likelihood that you’re going to be unsuccessful. Like anybody that’s moved from one position to another, you can’t say that you’ve had any experience at it until you actually have the experience.

But you can look at all the ear-markings and you can determine that’s there’s a pretty high likelihood they’re going to succeed. And I think that’s the case with Johnny.

-Q: How do you tell?

-BOWLSBY: Some are better prepared than others. And I don’t know that you be better prepared than sitting on the bench next to Mike Krzyzewski and playing nine years in the NBA…

There were just a lot of requisite experiences that make him a really likely successful head coach.

-Q: Are you concerned that he could leave Stanford as soon as Coach K retires?

-BOWLSBY: I think he’ll be here a long time. I think Stanford’s a great place and I think he’ll grow to love it. And if the call comes some day for him to return to Duke, I think he’ll be in a position where he has to think long and hard as to whether he takes it.

-Q: Do you think you’ve upgraded over your previous coach?

-BOWLSBY: Who’s to say? It’s a new era. It’s a new guy. It’s some new thinking. It’s fresh ideas. Only time will tell how he rates among the coaches that have coached at Stanford over the many years.

-Q: Can you characterize how the process has gone for you, from Trent leaving to now?

-BOWLSBY: What do you think?

-Q: Busy. Hectic. Tiring.

-BOWLSBY: Yeah, it’s been busy.

-Q: So are you happy with the way it turned out?

-BOWLSBY: I’m very happy with the way it played out. It was two weeks from beginning to end and we ended up with a great coach.

-Q: What do you think of the criticism you’ve received–including from me–about the handling of Trent’s departure?

-BOWLSBY: I think it’s unfair and I think it’s inaccurate.

-Q: What’s inaccurate? Why?

-BOWLSBY: Because the people writing about it don’t have all the information.

-Q: Would you have offered the job to Montgomery if he hadn’t already left for Cal?

-BOWLSBY: I don’t think Mike Montgomery would take the job if it was offered. I don’t think you return to places you’ve left.

-Q: So why was he back here at Stanford on your staff?

-BOWLSBY: Because he wasn’t working and he wanted something to stay busy. He was a 40-percent time employee. He was doing public-relations work, doing speeches for us. He was helping us with senior staff stuff where we could use a coach’s perspective.

-Q: Did you want him to be Trent’s replacement?

-BOWLSBY: He’s a great coach, anybody would want him to come back. You have to ask him if he would’ve come back. But there wasn’t any thought about him coming back.

-Q: Did you doubt Trent while he was here?

-BOWLSBY: No. He told me the last time we met that he wanted to be the coach forever at Stanford and I told him that’s what I wanted, too.

-Q: So why wasn’t Trent the coach at Stanford forever?

-BOWLSBY: He’s the one that left, not me.

-Q: Could you have done anything differently to keep him, to make sure he had a role here the rest of his career?

-BOWLSBY: Other than tell him that he had a role here the rest of his career… that’s the only thing I could’ve done.

-Q: Are you on the line for this one–do you have some pressure for this hire to work?

-BOWLSBY: I’m on the line at one level or another on every hire.

-Q: Not this hire any more than some of the other moves you’ve made?

-BOWLSBY: Not as far as I’m concerned. It’s a major sport, obviously. We want to get right. And I think we have gotten it right.

-Q: How often were you turned down during the search?

-BOWLSBY: I’m not going to get into talking about other candidates. That has no bearing at this point in time. We got a guy I love and he’s going to be a great coach at Stanford.

-Q: You gave Johnny six years. That’s more than you gave Harbaugh, right? Why?

-BOWLSBY: It is, yeah. Because I think that… We need to invest in him and he’s moving a family all the way across the country and he was in a very secure situation and he and his representatives asked for six years and so I did what they wanted.

Post navigation

What a bunch of smarmy SOB’s in bay area management (both college and pros). The only person I respect is Chris Mullin and I don’t believe much of what he says.

Johnny

He better get his act together and put on his best charm to get this Miles Plumlee guy to stay. Otherwise he’s gonna be off to a bad start.

stanfordfan

And so the honeymoon period begins. Kawakami and Wilner have been so biased against Bowlsby in this Trent Johnson affair that it borderlines on unprofessional. I’m happy to see Trent Johnson go. Subtract the two Lopez twins, and Trent Johnson’s record at Stanford would be mediocre. And the Lopez twins weren’t the product of effective recruiting – they were the gift of the influence of a mother who was a world class swimmer at Stanford and an extremely supportive Stanford alumna. (I went to school with her…) Johnson’s team lacked an effective perimeter shooting game, something that was always present in Montgomery’s teams. Johnson’s real-time game management was suspect and his temper got the best of him at most inopportune times. To read Kawakami and Wilner, one gets the idea that Trent Johnson was ready for the Hall of Fame. To the contrary, the cupboard looks pretty empty for next season and the recruiting pipeline is insufficient to compete with the elite Pac 10 teams. Given his Pac 10 Coach of the Year status and his Sweet 16 appearance, Johnson’s marketability was at its very best – but again, those accolades were strictly a result of the Lopez magic. I’m thankful that Bowlsby saw through all of that, particularly since Wilner and Kawakami were obviously blind to Johnson’s flaws. It’s time for a coaching change, and Bowlsby handled it the only way that he could, given Johnson’s popularity with the administration and major donors. Dawkins deserves our support now, Kawakami, and so does Bowlsby. These tidbits of negativity that you and Wilner keep throwing out are not relevant and lost their entertainment value a long time ago.

esfads

Tim: perhaps the blogging is killing off brain cells.
“Still, I don’t know how much Dawkins was involved in recruiting at Duke, if at all.”

Well, let’s see. He’s standing in front of you and apparently you got some time afterward to ask him additional questions. So … Why not ask him: “Who are some of the past recruits you brought to Duke?” or perhaps: “You’ve coached on the East Coast, what makes you think you can hang with the competitive Pac-10 West Coast recruiting push?”

Granted, the answer would have denied three graphs of blog materia and the opportunity to take a couple more indirect shots at Bowlsby, but maybe it also makes for a more interesting story overall.

Jake

Scary that Bowlsby asked Coach K about Wojo. That would have been a disaster.

gdh

Some examples of coaches with no head coaching experience who took over a good programs…

Roy Williams was an assistant for 10 years under Dean Smith before getting the call from Kansas… very similar to Dawkins. Actually Dean Smith himself had no previous head coaching experience before taking over at North Carolina.

Sure there are examples of assistants who have no business being a head coach, but there are also examples that it has worked out quite well.

We can’t really say whether this was a bad hire or not until Dawkins has hada chance to prove whether he’s another “Roy” or another “Amaker”. Until then… GO CARD!

Johnny

What Stanfordfan wrote:

“Kawakami and Wilner have been so biased against Bowlsby in this Trent Johnson affair that it borderlines on unprofessional.”

Of course Stanfordfan is not biased at all.

Never mind that many people, including many Stanford fans, agree with Kawakami and Wilner. Regardless, they are entitled to call it as they see it in a blog.

Remember Stanfordfan, they’re not anonymous like you. When they write something, they are accountable for it. Thus they have more incentives to tone down their critique then to up it. Since they haven’t done that, I suspect they are pretty confident that they are on the balls with their opinions.

stanfordfan

Johnny, what’s your point?

SpinMD

I’m OK with Bowlsby letting TJ go if that’s what he really wanted to do, but for God’s sake have a plan B, not this desultory expedition of all the A and B level coaches that might have the tiniest interest in Stanford (Larry Brown????). I think the Merc guys have done a fantastic job with this story from the beginning. I didn’t have a clue something was up until Wilner started his speculation. I hope Dawkins works out and I will be behind him 100%, but he is not a slam dunk by any stretch of the imagination.

Johnny

SpinMD

Here’s the thing. Getting a slamdunk coach for Stanford basketball is not an easy task. That’s what people like Stanfordfan, who looks at things through rosy cardinal lens, don’t seem to understand.

People with a little more ojectivity understood that loosing TJ was a bad thing not because they thought he was hall of fame coach. But because they knew that Stanford may not easily get another coach that’s better. You see Stanford basketball, despite their success, is not a program with the revered status of an Indiana where if you lose a stud coach, no problem, simply hire another one.

Before Johnny Dawkins was hired, all these Trent Johnson haters never mentioned a single word about him. In fact, I’m pretty sure most of them never even heard of him. Instead they were bullish about getting the likes of Mark Few, Jamie Dixon, Jay Wright, Tony Bennett, Larry Brown etc. Non Stanford people with a little more sense were rolling their eyes and thinking “Get a clue people, those guys wouldn’t go to Stanford!”.

Now after coaches of that caliber have all said “Thanks but no thanks.”, all these Trent Johnson haters have no choice but to say “Johnny Dawkins, a massive upgrade over Trent Johnson”, even though there’s no evidence to support that whatsoever since this guy has never been a head coach.

This situation almost reminds me of the 49ers when they fired Steve Marriucci. He was somewhat successful, but his detractors were giving the Lopez twin argument: “Yeah he had a winning season here and there but that’s just because of the players from Walsh/Seifert dynasty he inherited”. So he gets canned and we get the wonderful Dennis Erickson and we all know how well that went.

stanfordfan

Johnny, Trent Johnson is a Hall of Fame coach? And that’s showing objectivity? That’s rich! And you’re accusing me of looking at the Stanford situation through rose colored glasses because I don’t buy into Trent Johnson’s Hall of fame credentials? Just goes to prove that anybody can write anything in these blogs. Logic and perspective and factual accuracy are optional. It helps to be a Kawakami lap dog, like Johnny.

Johnny

Stanfordfan

Go back and read what I wrote again. Slowly. I said:

“People with a little more ojectivity understood that loosing TJ was a bad thing NOT because they thought he was hall of fame coach. ”

What part of the word “NOT”, did you not understand?

stanfordfan

Johnny,

Sorry about the misread, but you didn’t have to turn Hillary Clinton on me. I don’t like being accused of not having objectivity by a person who is parroting the words of a biased journalist selling sensationalism. The issue isn’t about hating Trent Johnson, but about not hating Bob Bowlsby. Now it’s your turn to go back and re-read my posts SLOWLY. Bowlsby didn’t fire Johnson and I was never on an anti-Johnson kick before this incident. But as things worked out, the parasites of the press and their lapdog bloggers went for Bowlsby’s throat and I chose to defend Bowlsby for reasons that became clear as this controversy was unfolding, as explained in my original post. Bowlsby didn’t deserve any of this intense criticism, simply because Trent Johnson wasn’t such a great coach in the first place, as explained in depth in my original post. And with OBJECTIVITY, the Trent Johnson future at Stanford looked bleak because of his failure to recruit. It was a really good time for a change, and my compliments to Bowlsby for being light years ahead of Kawakami and Wilner on this issue.

Johnny

Stanfordfan

If Johnson is such a bad coach, how did he take over a Nevada program that was 8-18 before he arrived and hadn’t gone into postseason play for over 10 years and turned them into a 25-9 team and a sweet 16? Last time I checked, he also didn’t have any Lopez twins there either. So what happened, pure luck?

Recruiting at Stanford is limited by admission department. YOU KNOW THAT. Why put the entire blame on Johnson?

What I said in my last post was that Johnson wasn’t a great coach but he wasn’t a bad one either. But the key point you missed was that Stanford cannot EXPECT to get somebody better then him because they don’t have the pedigree of an Indiana or Duke or UCLA. You may think you do but its not even close. And even if your pedigree is good enough to draw some interest from a top coach, they will still shy away because of the salary/admission issue. Sometimes you have to settle for a good coach and not a great one. Because if you get rid of a good one in the delusional dream of getting a great one, you may wind up getting somebody alot worst (see my 49er reference). You know for sure Johnny Dawkins is gonna be a better coach then Trent Johnson? Would you bet on it?

Kawakami and Wilner aren’t always right (who the hell is) and I certainly don’t agree with alot of their stuff. But they were spot on with this thing. Looking at things with more objectivity then you, they saw that with the issues of pay, admissions, and a student body/alumi/adminstration that doesn’t put a premium on athletics, Johnson may be the best coach Stanford could get next to Montgomery. That’s why they were critical of Bowlsby for losing Trent Johnson. Now you can disagree with their opinion. But its a stretch to accuse them of unprofessional bias when they’re not exactly making a “world is flat” type assertion. In fact, I bet if you ask a group of independent observers who aren’t Bowlsby fanboys like you what their take of the Trent Johnson affair is I bet you get at least 50% saying they thought Bowlsby screwed up.

Good lord, how the hell did I get to writing walls of text.

Have a good day.

stanfordfan

Johnny, please don’t insult me by quoting hypothetical polls. A hypothetical poll doesn’t provide much evidence of anything. And Johnny, you don’t have a monopoly on objectivity. People do have honest differences of opinion.

With the Lopez twins gone, a Trent Johnson Stanford basketball program was destined to be mired in mediocrity. JOHNSON COULDN’T RECRUIT. The Lopez twins, a gift to the program from their Stanford alumna mother, was the only reason Trent Johnson had a successful cople of years. Great years. But next year looks dismal. We’re looking at a missing inside presence and an ineffective perimeter shooting game. That won’t work in the Pac 10. And the recruiting pipeline doesn’t give a lot of hope for the future. Can’t blame anybody but Trent Johnson. Pointing the finger at the Admissions Dept. and then blindly accepting mediocrity is your prerogative.

Bowlsby was hired to be Director of Athletics because he believes that Stanford can be better. In spite of the Admissions Dept. And yes I support Bowlsby on that one. He took bold action on the football program, and it looks much better now than it did under Teevens and Harris. And now I am happy to support him on the Trent Johnson thing. And remember, Bowlsby didn’t fire Johnson. We don’t know what went on in conversations between Bowlsby and Johnson when the season ended.

You’re welcome to your opinion on anything, but criticizing Bowlsby because of Kawakami’s bias is lame. By the way, Kawakami stirs up controversy because it sells and because he gets rewarded for it. In all the other local papers, the hiring of Dawkins was the end of the story regarding Bowlsby. That’s where the story should have ended. The Dawkins should be greeted with an open mind. Too bad you don’t have one.

Curtis

Tim,

Larry Brown said on the Dan Patrick show that he was close to taking a college job last week. He would not say which job, but it is easy to guess. He said moving would be difficult on his family, especially his 102 year old mother.

Curtis

Mark

StanfordFan, nice posts. I think you summarized nicely why Kawakami was out to lunch on Johnson. To me Wilner has been a little less careless and hasn’t quite acted like a spurned lover the way Kawakami has.

To write that the new era is getting off to a bad start based on a perfunctory press conference, where all sides said all the right things, is laughably unfair reporting. I don’t know if TJ gave TK some off court personal attention, but these excessively passionate Kawakami articles are just getting bizarre.

You look at the potential upside of Dawkins and it’s no contest. After five years it was obvious that with Johnson, decent guy though he was, the best we could have hoped for was Nevada’s program without the athletes. Personally I find that unacceptable.

Now, we have a true opportunity to rebuild a great program. Even though TJ left behind almost nothing for Dawkins to inherit, I’ll happily settle for players not getting on academic probation, playing good defense, hitting free throws and running an actual offense. If we do those things, and recruit reasonably well, personally I’ll be a happy and patient fan. It’s been 5 years since we had those things in Men’s games at Maples and I can’t wait to have them back!

Brutus

Duke doesn’t produce NBA Players? They currently have more players in the NBA than any other school. Not to mention some pretty good ones in Elton Brand, Corey Maggette, Carlos Boozer, Shane Battier and Luol Deng.
Stanford scored a coup with Dawkins– what bright, talented young kid would not want to come and play for him? He will run circles around Floyd, Montgomery and the guys on the Left Coast. I just hope he doesn’t do too well and decide he likes the weather out there better than he did in NC.

stanfordfan

Mark,

Thanks for the kind words. It gets old getting beat up by one of Kawakami’s lap dogs.

I would never seek to fire Trent Johnson. He isn’t a Teevens or Harris, but his accolades for this season were an illusion. Bowlsby is light years ahead of the typical fan and the typical journalist (read KAWAKAMI.) There was little in Johnson’s tenure to impress, except for the Lopez twins magnificence. But try as I may, I can’t give a whole lot of credit to Johnson for that anomaly. The future under Trent Johnson looks BLEAK. Bowlsby is getting hammered because he figured that out.

It just didn’t seem right for Bowlsby to be crucified over this incident. Johnny called me a “Bowlsby fanboy” because I didn’t buy into Kawakami’s sensationalism. It really helps to be supported on this. Thanks again.

jim3k

Hi. Duke alum, DBR denizen and Dawkins fan here.

First, here’s a link to the DBR re Kawakami’s opinion. It’s balanced and worth a read.

I know a number of Stanford folks are concerned that Stanford’s basketball approach is weak and that Duke’s was strong. I think they are about the same. The Stanford meme about recruits v. the admissions office is a bit overblown. The SAT thing actually about even since Stanford was including the SATs of its walkons, while Duke was not. If you do apples v. apples there’s no statistical difference. It’s true that Coach K has asked Duke admissions to admit an occasional kid from lesser circumstances — Carrawell and Dockery — but both graduated and had been carefully vetted. Dawkins did that. And Stanford should want to do that once in a while.

And the DBR is quite right that a different style game will eventually appear. K says Dawkins is one of the best player evaluators in the business. You think that Stanford will not benefit from that? Speed will come to Stanford. It will not be Montgomery ball, but it will be good. And Stanford will be proud of those players.

Just remember, it took Krzyzewski 3 years to field his first good team — Dawkins was on it. He knows what it takes and how long it will take.

If he misses out on Miles Plumlee, it will not be because of anything Dawkins did nor didn’t do. It will be because the pre-Dawkins Stanford took so much time getting to what is the right place. Bowlsby can be legitimately criticized; as for Dawkins, you’ll need three years to make a valid judgment.

jim3k

One other thing.

Stanford is supposedly too cheap to pay its basketball coaches the market value. That may be true, and money almost lured Tara away last year. But Monty picked up some good change from Cal and Trent was easily hired away. So Stanford knows that it’s got a problem.

Right now, I’m not sure Dawkins’s salary is an issue for him. It was not at Duke (with its lesser cost of living). But Dawkins had a 9-year NBA salary to build up some sort of wealth. He may not be rich, but he can do quite well on Stanford’s salary plus his own income. So he’s not going to cause Stanford a salary headache, at least for a while.

The headache will come from Stanford’s less than substantial operating budget. Johnson would have addressed it shortly and Dawkins will shortly. That is the elephant in the locker room. The Stanford administration will have to face up to that if it wants to remain competitive. This will mean facilities, assistants’ salaries and travel budgets. It costs more to be in the Bay Area. Bowlsby will have to recognize that as a reality and apply it. He knows it, but hasn’t yet been forced to deal with it.